We've been talking about the flood threat to the Ohio Valley for more than a week. I expect a break in the rain for the next three days. Unfortunately, two more storms are expected to cause heavy rains starting about the 4th and continuing into the tenth. So, the threat is not over.

Many times on this blog I have asked the question, "Where is the institutional incentive to disprove global warming?"

This question becomes pertinent when examining the recent headlines proclaiming that storms are now more frequent due to 'global warming' (which, as we have seen, does not exist at the moment as world temperatures are slightly below normal). A commentary in the UK observes,As the great global warming scare continues to crumble, attention focuses on all those groups that have a huge interest in keeping it alive. Governments look on it as an excuse to raise billions of pounds in taxes. Wind farm developers make fortunes from the hidden subsidies we pay through our electricity bills. A vast academic industry receives more billions for concocting the bogus science that underpins the scare. Carbon traders hope to make billions from corrupt schemes based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2. But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.

What do we mean by bogus science? As I have posted on this blog and elsewhere, the global warming scare is overwhelmingly driven by computer models. Here is what computer modeler Willis Eschenbach says about this latest "study,"[Willis'] conclusion is worth quoting at some length: “When your results represent the output of four computer models, fed into a fifth computer model, whose output goes to a sixth computer model, which is calibrated against a seventh computer model, and then your results are compared to a series of different results from the fifth computer model, but run with different parameters, in order to show that flood risks have increased from greenhouse gases…” you cannot pretend that this is “a valid representation of reality”, let alone “a sufficiently accurate representation of reality to guide our future actions”.

Just a few days ago, I lamented the overuse of computer models in the global warming debate. The "study" cited above ignored the fact that the actual weather record shows no actual upward trend in storms.

Ignore the hype. That is all it is.

A present, there is no valid scientific evidence that storms are getting worse due to 'global warming.'

I'm watching the Oscars while proofing the eBook versions of Warnings and I noticed Marisa Tomei being introduced to tell us about the "science" Oscars presented "at a luncheon earlier this month."

The scientists' moment of glory consisted of about a 5-10 second pan which, I guess, is better than nothing. Then, some guy in a tux standing next to Anne Hathaway leans into the microphone and says, "congratulations, nerds."

New thunderstorms are developing near I-35 in southern Oklahoma and north of Tulsa. I'm expecting more thunderstorms to develop over eastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri during the night. These could easily become severe.

Twenty years ago tornado footage was still rare. Today, you can track storms via the internet. Take a look at these images from 4:29pm.

Click to enlarge.

At left is a strong thunderstorm moving toward Pond Creek, Oklahoma. By going to www.severestudios.com you can watch images from their chasers. In this case, Jeffery Gonzales is showing the intense rain and hail (middle image) and you can see his location via GPS in the right image.

The thunderstorms in northwest Oklahoma are developing along a "dry line," which separates the moist unstable air to the east from very dry air (humidity less than 5% in places) and blowing dust to the west. Visibilities are one mile or less in the Texas Panhandle.

Update 4:02pm. City of Borger is being threatened by a large wildfire in the blowing dust area. In addition:

A MANDATORY EVACUATION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE FOLLOWING
LOCATIONS: RICHLAND ACRES...RANCH ACRES...AND CANYON COUNTRY
CLUB...AND THEN ALSO FOR TIMBERCREEK CANYON...PALISADES...AND LAKE
TANGLEWOOD. RESIDENT SHOULD EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY.

The purple-pink echoes (circled) indicate large hail and, there is a "hail spike" southeast of the hail-bearing storm (indicated by arrows). Any time you see one of these spikes there is a very high probability of large (2" or larger) hail.

Believe it or not, there is a car in the other lane with its headlights on. It is so foggy (visibility is about 100 ft.) that it is difficult to see the traffic signals, especially when they are green. Photo taken at 9:45am in north Wichita.

While the region is enshrouded in fog now (Wichita's Mid-Continent Airport officially is reporting visibility of zero), there is a very significant chance of tornadoes from Wichita south into Oklahoma and east to the Ohio River later today and tonight.

This is the NWS' Storm Prediction Center's tornado outlook from this afternoon through 6am Central time tomorrow. The solid lines are relative probability (i.e., yellow is the highest) and the hatched area is where they are predicting violent tornadoes to occur. If you are within the white line, pay attention to the weather this afternoon through tonight. Large hail and damaging thunderstorm winds are also possible.

Tomorrow, the risk of severe weather moves east:

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security because it is so early in tornado season.

After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict..

For a time Earth would likely be a colder, hungrier planet.

"Our results suggest that agriculture could be severely impacted, especially in areas that are susceptible to late-spring and early-fall frosts," said Oman, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

So, let me get this straight: [sarcasm on]

We are supposed to believe that global warming is bad. Cooling the earth is bad because it affects agriculture and will cause famine. So, we want to cool the earth through expensive geoengineering.

Scientists call it "geoengineering," but in plain speak, it means things like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades.

By Karl Gelles, USA TODAY

Once the domain of scientists' off-hours schemes scrawled on cocktail napkins, geoengineering is getting a serious look in the political realm.

Each brings its own set of risks, but in a world fretting about the consequences of global warming, are these ideas whose time has come?

With 2010 tying as the world's warmest year on record and efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions looking stymied, calls are rising for research into engineering our way out of global warming — everything from launching solar shade spacecraft to genetically engineering green deserts. An international consortium of 12 universities and research institutes on Tuesday, for example, announced plans to pioneer large-scale "ocean fertilization" experiments aimed at using the sea to pull more greenhouse gases out of the sky.

Do journalists not know how to read graphs? There are four measures of atmospheric temperatures. Here they are, each updated to the latest information (January, 2011).

British Hadley Center data.

University of Alabama data

RSS data

NASA data

As all four clearly show, 2010 was NOT the hottest year. And, all four show temperatures are cooling at the present time.

It would be refreshing (and basic journalism) for reporters to stop reprinting claims from environmental groups and do some independent investigation.

The quotes from "experts" in the article are telling,

"We are moving into a different kind of world," says environmental economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University.

"That's where geoengineering comes in," says international relations expert David Victor of the University of California - San Diego

"Geoengineering is no longer a taboo topic at scientific meetings. They are looking at it as one more policy prescription," says Eli Kintisch, Science magazine reporter. (his biography shows no education in atmospheric science).

As seems to be the norm for these articles, none of the people quoted about modifying the atmosphere are atmospheric scientists.

That stated, it is my opinion geoengineering is a terrible idea at this time. Why? There is no indication it is needed (temperatures are now cooling and they have been essentially flat for 15 years as you can see from the graphs), the world economy can't afford it, and the "risks" of it backfiring are substantial. Once, for example, iron is dumped into the ocean it cannot be removed. What if it causes too much cooling? What if it kills (already depleted) fish populations?

As previously documented, there is a growing number of atmospheric scientists who are concerned that the world may be in for significant cooling in the next five to twenty years. If so, geoengineering would increase the amount of cooling. As this blog has demonstrated, humanity does much better with warmer temperatures than it does with colder temperatures.

The area enclosed by the blue line now has a 45% probability of severe weather (see definitions in post below) and the lower probabilities 5 and 15% have been pulled a bit to the west in Oklahoma. Pay attention to the weather tomorrow, starting in the afternoon, if you live in these areas!